ICOP, MEWPs and work at height.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The problem is, almost any tree could be accessed with a mewp given enough effort and the right machine.

 

Little spider lifts that can be tracked through a house for instance. I'm pretty sure at least 75% of trees could be accessed with a mewp.

 

However if I costed a mewp in to those jobs I wouldn't get any work.

 

So that leaves only one option, carry on climbing as usual, just make sure there are no accidents to investigate.

 

What you describe is, in H&S speak, the "reasonably practicable" argument, i.e. cost v benefit which means the cost (increase) is disproportionate to the benefit (safety gains) and hence can be discounted.

 

Just make sure you note that on the site RA and enjoy your time in the MEWP doing the other 25% of trees

 

Cheers Peter...I'm off fer some scram now.

Paul

[Peter]

Ha, I've only been in a mewp once in the last 5 years, and that was only to avoid climbing through a load of Ivy.....

[wisewood]

Hi Si,

 

As I understand it you can access Level 2 - chainsaw from a MEWP with CS30, well certainly Lantra seems to allow such (see https://www.lantra.co.uk/awards/product/lantra-awards-technical-award-use-chainsaw-mobile-elevated-work-platform-mewp-2-0 where it states "please make sure that you hold a current licence to practice in the MEWP type you would like to use as well as a working knowledge of chainsaw maintenance and cross-cut techniques." However City & Guilds / NPTC says differently "Qualification Overview: The candidate must have previously completed pre-requisite units (201) Chainsaw Maintenance, (202) Cross-cutting and (203) Felling and Processing up to 380mm. " (see NPTC )

 

Cheers..

paul

 

Thanks Paul, looks like I might have to go the lantra route.

Am I correct in thinking that lantra courses have an expiry date unlike nptc ?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thanks Paul, looks like I might have to go the lantra route.

Am I correct in thinking that lantra courses have an expiry date unlike nptc ?

 

Lantra - training courses have a 5 year expiry but their 'qualifications', which is what you will be doing, don't...in the same way NPTC's don't expire.

 

However, both require 5 year refreshers anyway to accord with HSE guidance (but don't need to worry about that for a while.)

 

Good luck..

Paul

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Quite right, but the same applies to rope and harness work too, how many falls have there been where the climber was doing everything by the book? tied in twice, LOLER'd kit, two handed saw use etc? Hardly any al all. The problem is that all accidents end up in the HSE stats, even if it was a complete cowboy climbing on a ratty 10 year old rope not following any of the guidelines. So the ICOP has been developed erroneously by comparing apples with oranges.

 

 

 

I have used mewps a few times, on the right job they are fantastic and can save loads of time. My issue with the ICOP is that I don't believe that their use should be the default position as is currently the case. Use of a rope in preference to a mewp now has to be justified in the RA. I suspect that if all the tree work in the UK last year that was done with a rope and harness had been done with a mewp there would have been more not fewer accidents. The statistics used to prepare the ICOP are taken from all mewp use and compared with all tree work, I think that using a mewp to paint the side of a building or change a light bulb is no where near as dangerous as using it to reduce a large tree. Yet including the stats from 'safe' mewp jobs and comparing them with those from rope and harness tree work has led to a false positive result in favour of the mewp as the safer option.

 

 

 

Unless we have solid stats for the number of days worked or trees climbed across the industry and compare the accident data factoring in the much lower rate of mewp use in arboriculture we will always end up in this position. Like I said at the top the thread, I'm not against mewps at all, but I think that our current ICOP is actually recommending the (slightly) less safe option.

 

 

Full on agreement here.

 

There was the incident a while back where the MEWP went over in a park.

 

I'd suspect a significant factor in the operator error was the mindset that had been adopted / imposed which required a MEWP to be considered as the safe default and climbing only as a less attractive option.

 

So the "system" was applied but the human factor made (or perhaps more accurately DIDNT make) the appropriate thought process behind the system. That's part of the problem with systems - the blind compliance of lazy fools.

 

I remember having this discussion at the AAAC workshop Paul.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Full on agreement here.

 

There was the incident a while back where the MEWP went over in a park.

 

I'd suspect a significant factor in the operator error was the mindset that had been adopted / imposed which required a MEWP to be considered as the safe default and climbing only as a less attractive option.

 

So the "system" was applied but the human factor made (or perhaps more accurately DIDNT make) the appropriate thought process behind the system. That's part of the problem with systems - the blind compliance of lazy fools.

 

I remember having this discussion at the AAAC workshop Paul.

 

"Late to the party"...unusual for you Kevin

 

Indeed, the "human/behavioural" factor is most difficult to control.

 

To all 'posters' here can I just clarify / confirm that the ICOP does not seek to recommend one method of access over another for a given situation, i.e. MEWPs over climbing, that is NOT its role / function. It merely seeks to set out a process for considering undertaking tree work at height which should ensure a consistent approach at the planning and management stage.

 

The incident you refer to, was that the use of the wrong spreader plates on a woodland edge and the outriggers failed, hence the MEWP toppled....an 'indirect' fall from height, but absolutely a safety issue not least as the guy broke his back (I think.)

 

Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall | Media centre - HSE

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

"Late to the party"...unusual for you Kevin

 

Indeed, the "human/behavioural" factor is most difficult to control.

 

To all 'posters' here can I just clarify / confirm that the ICOP does not seek to recommend one method of access over another for a given situation, i.e. MEWPs over climbing, that is NOT its role / function. It merely seeks to set out a process for considering undertaking tree work at height which should ensure a consistent approach at the planning and management stage.

 

The incident you refer to, was that the use of the wrong spreader plates on a woodland edge and the outriggers failed, hence the MEWP toppled....an 'indirect' fall from height, but absolutely a safety issue not least as the guy broke his back (I think.)

 

Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall | Media centre - HSE

 

I was watching Paul.... Just didn't have time / something to add!!

 

That's the one I was thinking of, just my thoughts but I wondered if the users had become slaves to the system rather than masters of it and had defaulted to the RA assumption that MEWP is inherently safer rather than actually applying the prevailing circumstances to arrive at an effective RA output.

 

I bet they had a piece of paper that satisfied the audit trail - from the office.

 

Can't fix stupid or lazy, but you can fix poor supervision / management!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I was watching Paul.... Just didn't have time / something to add!!

 

That's the one I was thinking of, just my thoughts but I wondered if the users had become slaves to the system rather than masters of it and had defaulted to the RA assumption that MEWP is inherently safer rather than actually applying the prevailing circumstances to arrive at an effective RA output.

 

I bet they had a piece of paper that satisfied the audit trail - from the office.

 

Can't fix stupid or lazy, but you can fix poor supervision / management!

 

Maybe complacency too, often a factor in my experience, and at all levels, as in we use this machine everyday so we'll carry on as always..."always" normally involving outriggers being placed on roads / hard-surfaces rather than soft woodland edges.

 

Anyway, going back to that AAAC workshop...

 

Cheers..

Paul

[skyhuck]

The important thing to remember about all this H&S guff is that its dreamt up and policed by guys like this

 

Yes he is a health and safety auditor, can't say I'm surprised

 

( The cheshire cat, not Gandhi )

Edited March 31, 2016 by skyhuck